This is topic Entertainment Weekly article - "Why Isn't Anyone Going to the Movies This Year?" in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004050

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-09-2005, 03:07 PM:
 
The new issue of Entertainment Weekly has a big article on declining movie attendance. It is a thought-provoking article but contains a few things that really made my blood boil. I'll post the whole article when it appears on their website.

A surprising statistic from a "survey" they posted on their website is onlyl 9% of people listed "I'll wait for the DVD, it'll be out in a couple of months anyway" as a reason for not seeing movies in theatres. But I hate polls that are unscientific, conducted on the internet, and then published in magazines. How accurate can they be? Not very, especially when the questions are worded as those were.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-09-2005, 03:20 PM:
 
Was the #1 reason because the movies have been generally bad lately?

I used to go to see movies almost every week and worst case 2 or 3 times a month. This year, I think I've been to two or 3 total. It's certainly not a case of waiting for the DVD as I've only rented 2 or 3 this year also.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 05-09-2005, 04:04 PM:
 
Part of the reason is that people are so much busier than they were several years ago. Every family I know has their kids in so many activities it is a wonder they have time to eat.

From my experience the DVD factor is a subtile one. Its not so much that people are waiting for the DVD as the knowledge that a title is (or soon will be available on DVD) that takes the edge off of the "I got to see it now".

Not that people are renting more DVDS, but it is the knowledge that they can (at some time in the future) view the picture whenever they want it that has, in my opinion, really changed the moviegoing public demand mentality.

There are of course those diehard few that "have to see it right now"- which accounts for the large opening week. But IMHO the real reason for the large second week dropoffs that have become so common is that for the average american knowledge of the DVD means they can put off going out to see it until whenever. Its just that 'whenever' never comes.
 

---

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 05-09-2005, 04:37 PM:
 
If I wasn't working at a theater, and had to pay to see movies, I'd probably wait till the DVD as well. Why should I take a chance and hope the Kingdom of Heaven is good and pay 8 bucks to see it, when I can wait till August to rent it on DVD for 3?

I agree with the 'if your a die hard fan, your going to see it anyway' Movies now a days are like new music CD's, there are some good ones out there, but most I wouldn't want to waste my money on when I can either rent it or find the CD used somewhere.

I'm a firm believer that if they would wait longer to put out new movie releases on DVD, instead of a few months, than theater attendence would probably go up. OR, put out less movies with more quality as opposed to more movies with no qualtiy which in turns leaves the theater in two weeks. But I'm just a booth op so what do I know??
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-09-2005, 05:00 PM:
 

quote: Lyle Romer

---

Was the #1 reason because the movies have been generally bad lately?

---

quote: Pravin Ratnam

---

It doesn't help that DVD versions have extra footage.

---

True but often that footage is pointless, sucks, or adds nothing to the story.

I still think a great idea would be:

Exclusive-to-theatres footage!

I'm amazed no filmmaker has thought of this.
 

---

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 05-09-2005, 05:51 PM:
 
Let's see now..... less attendance so let's build MORE theaters. Makes sense.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-09-2005, 06:24 PM:
 
1. Its cause people hate the pre-shows for the most part and they really are almost all beyond the stupid catagory.

2. Its why they finally let Jack Valenti go... he can't get up at the upcomming Showorst '06 and brag how much attencance has risen. They've finally had to replace him with a real person in order to figure it out.

3. The reel reason... everyone is staying at home and just downloading the latest releases that Jack's replacement people can't possible stop.

4. Or is it that the newness of all the new multiplex's that has worn off. Perhaps it is time for something else new in this industry like giant single screen theatres with pipe organs and unbelievable architecture.......! People get tired of sitting in a shoebox. Shoebox's are meant for storage.

Mark

[ 05-09-2005, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gulbrandsen ]
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-09-2005, 07:55 PM:
 
As a customer, here is why I am seeing fewer movies in theatres:

Nothing there I want to see. (Only a couple of films look decent this summer, and I refuse to give G Lucas a single penny of my money. So, I'll not be going out much in the near future.)

That AWFUL pre-show thing. I can see ads for free on TV...I don't want them when I pay. You don't see commercials on HBO, do you? Do the theatre owners actually think people LIKE that? OR, as I suspect, do they just not care?

Cheap DVD's. Cheaper to buy DVD first week of release from deepdiscountdvd than going to theatre.

My system sounds good to my ears. Many theatres don't sound that good. I can control things, and I'm not left in the hands of those who design torus screens!

Age. When one is older, one dislikes going out. I don't want to jostle with people, and fight for a specific seat. In my house, I ALWAYS have the perfect seat.

Give me a product I want to see in a pleasant no-hassle environment and I'll come back!!
 

---

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 05-10-2005, 12:50 AM:
 
Let us also not forget that all of us now have about 100+ of 'EXCITING AND ENTERTAINING' channels to choose from on our TV! Why go see a movie when I can stay at home and watch Fear Factor or Extreme Makeover?!
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 05-10-2005, 01:54 AM:
 

quote: Mark Lensenmayer

---

Do the theatre owners actually think people LIKE that?

---

Actually, we have a noticeable constituent of customers who LIKE the 2wenty and do as it suggests: try to get to the theatre early to catch all of it. We don't play ANY pre-show in our IMAX, yet when we opened Harry Potter to sold out crowds and we welcomed them with live announcements, I was asked "why didn't we get to see the 2wenty?"

In this age, either marketing companies are getting really good with creating entertaining forms of commercials, or people are oblivious to the difference between advertisements and entertainment. Hmmm ... which one?
 

---

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 05-10-2005, 08:43 AM:
 
Well, we've done all we can at my theatre then... We just switched to a five minute trailer pack:
-Coke or Moviefone (never both)
-Trl. 1
-Trl. 2
-Sound snipe

A helluva lot nicer than Carmike's telethon of merchandise preshow six miles away.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 05-10-2005, 01:46 PM:
 
Higher ticket prices
More advertising
Smaller screens and top-down masking for scope in many new theaters
Lack of concern for presentation quality by most management and staff
CrAP Code on most prints!!
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-10-2005, 02:04 PM:
 
..price of oil heading to the stars ain't helping matters as well. Outside of the cost for fuel for vehicles, the cost to manufacture prints, production costs, actor's wages, et.al. causing the price of a ticket to creep upwards and skywards.

Then, home theatre devices, outside of the boxed cheezy projected flat screened, set-it-up-yourself type of thing, comes the home LCD/DLP projection devices, now with 16/9 capabilites, with added sound systems that can match any complex by a long shot. Plus, with home designs that can match this as well (for people who have the dough to design such a creation-and I have one on the drawing board...)

Yet, there are those who STILL love to go out to a movie-no matter what costs....JUST to get out of the house and be entertained.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-10-2005, 02:09 PM:
 
Last night I was flipping through my girlfriend's National Enquirer. (I know its not a trusted rag) But it had an article on Why isn't anyone going to the movies. They talked about the quality of the movies and the general cost of tickets and taking a family to the movies. That the films are being released to the home market faster. And one thing in this tread no one has said. The article talked about the mark-up and the cost of the snack bar. They called up a few concession distributors to get some info on how much theatre chains pay for the snacks and soda.
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 05-10-2005, 06:04 PM:
 

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Or is it that the newness of all the new multiplex's that has worn off. Perhaps it is time for something else new in this industry like giant single screen theatres with pipe organs and unbelievable architecture.......! People get tired of sitting in a shoebox. Shoebox's are meant for storage.

---

Well said!
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-10-2005, 11:07 PM:
 
Why is it that movie theatres get the bad rap all the time for concession prices? Nice restaurants get just as much markup on a "fancy dinner" -- even though their building, equipment, etc. cost is FAR less than a movie theatre. I have seen no griping about the ridiculous cost of snacks in hotel rooms...way more expensive than theatres. Nobody is griping about the cost of beer and hotdogs at ballgames and concerts, even though they are WAY higher than theatres. Concert t-shirts -- over $30 now, but no magazine articles about that. Concert tickets -- up to $300 for a two-hour show by some dinosaur 70s act -- and there is ADVERTISING ALL OVER THE ARENA, and even on the stage sometimes. I don't see any bitching about jewelry stores marking up diamonds 400% and more. Cars cost at least 20 times what they did in the 1970s...no complaints about that. I don't see any other industry having its costs and markups trotted out for the world to see in major magazines.

Why doesn't just one of these magazine articles tell the world how much we have to spend on equipment, advertising, utilities, insurance, shipping, payroll, and "square footage?" Why doesn't someone point out that the seats we provide, anywhere from a hundred to 500 or more in each room, cost over $150 to $200 for every single one? Why don't they tell people about what it costs to put in a good Dolby or DTS system these days? And why don't they report how much we spend every year on cleaning up the mess and repairing damages caused by the people we are working to serve?

No...all they can do is trot out the old reliables: Theatres keep half of the boxoffice....theatres sell a buck worth of popcorn for six bucks...theatres all have sticky floors (and that's stupid too -- I can't remember the last time I was in a theatre with a sticky floor, unless there was a kiddie matinee in progress)...theatres make big bucks on advertising...it just makes me want to go postal on some of these stupid writers.

/RANT
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-11-2005, 12:22 AM:
 
The cost of gas just may be cutting into peoples entertainment budgets.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-11-2005, 01:22 AM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Why is it that movie theatres get the bad rap all the time for concession prices?

---

quote:

---

Nobody is griping about the cost of beer and hot dogs at ballgames

---

Two weeks ago I was in Yankee Stadium and spent $24.00 for two beers and two hotdogs. (regular dogs) I wasn't doing much of this that afternoon.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 05-12-2005, 12:44 PM:
 
Glenn Beck spoke about movie quality on his syndicated radio broadcast earlier this week. He too believes much of the product out there is pure crap. As most talk show hosts who nit-pick America's every little fad as the end of society as we know it, Beck believes that until more original ideas are written into scripts attendance will continue to drop. One film he referenced was House of Wax as being "non-original". Beck also skirted so-called "message" films like Hotel Rwanda as being too much of an emotional "downer", while continuing to tought Passion of the Christ as the "real" Best Picture (I guess Clint Eastwood must have rigged the voting or something ). He ended by commenting on the recent Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston break up claiming Pitt was right to leave Aniston because he wants children and she doesn't.

Oh yeah, I'm sure his new squeeze is just brimming with "Family Values" . . .
 

---

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 05-13-2005, 08:31 AM:
 
Mike B: Here here!!!

Clearly you run a business and appreciate what goes into it.

It has to be the most frustrating things when customers cannot appreciate the expenses that go into an operation and complain about paying 50 cents too much for this or that

What can you do?
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-13-2005, 11:51 AM:
 
I understand why a bottle of water costs $4 at a theater and so does most everyone here. But many in the general public could not care less about the business reasons why you have to charge $4. All they know is they can buy the same bottle of water for $1 elsewhere.
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 05-13-2005, 03:26 PM:
 
In the early 1990s, I went to the movies about 4 times a week.
Today, it's only once a week, sometimes less. Reasons?

1. Most new movies are predictable and boring because they try to please all audiences. No edges, nothing surprising. Why should I spend money to see old films remade with inferior storytelling and superflous CGI effects and "stars" I don't give a damn about?

2. Print quality (here in Germany) is often so bad that it is painful for me to watch movies on a big screen. Last week, I calculated the number of OK screenings I saw this years:
Out of 30 shows, only 4 were without serious fault (sharpness, framing, print steadiness, graininess etc.)

3. I am fed up arguing with idiots working at the local multiplexes who are unable to recognize a total out-of-focus image or notice that half their speakers are damaged.

4. I hardly watch anything on TV and DVD but old movies. No downloading, renting of video tapes or DVDs.

5. More often than not I find myself reading the program tables, desperately trying to find a film that is not a sequel, remake or kid's stuff.

6. Watching foreign (non-US) films is no alternative because most suffer from what we call the "euro-pudding" syndrome. In a way similar to the way in which marketing research and testing has flattened American movies, European films get more boring, predictable and constructed (casting, stories, visual style), there is no true identity to these movies but an international look of "concept" moviemaking camouflaging as "arthouse".

I don't mind the admission price or expensive drinks, but the current movie experience is so watered down that I actually have to force myself sometimes to go see a new movie. Depressing!
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 05-13-2005, 10:11 PM:
 
Discretionary spending (that which is non-essential) plays a part. Every budget has a limit. Consider a young adult couple with children. Saturday night at the movies admission: $15-20. Add transportation, babysitter, and refreshments: $25-40. Do the math.

Then you ask: "Can they do without it?" "Is it worth it?" "Could the time be better spent doing something else?" "Could they find something else to do for less?"

Cost, necessity, value, time, alternatives. Any one of these can be a contributory negative factor. That means fewer fannies in the seats, and that is the real measure. Your concession per cap goes to hell if you don't have any heads to sell to!

Figures don't lie, but liars figure, as the saying goes. Just read the quotes in the trades. The suits at the studios and the higher ups at NATO always cite the increase in yearly grosses, but the real fact is that prices are up and attendance is down.

You can only hang your hat on the argument that the business is "cyclical" for so long. Is it, really? More people going to the movies than ever before? Sure, there are more people living in the USA every year, too. Is the percentage of moviegoers increasing? Don't think so.

Then there are all those distributors who keep increasing their percentage of the grosses. Used to be a time when a 50-50 split seemed excessive!! Exhibs- check your contracts. That would be cheap by today's standards.

In the meantime, fixed exhibitor costs continue to rise: taxes, insurance, minimum wage, rent. You can only pass these costs through to your patrons for so long, and you can't keep raising concession prices forever either.

At some point you will encounter buyer resistance. The industry may have already reached that point in some areas of the country. When the bottom line of the balance sheet spells "loss" instead of "profit", the house lights will start to go out.

When you stop and think about taking over an enterprise that is floundering, you'd better ask yourself what it is that you could do better than the previous owner. I think in this industry, at the present time, the answer is: NOT MUCH.

And the studios? They will keep turning out and demand more money for it. Don't like the terms, Mr Exhibitor? Do without the picture. In the meantime, the guy down the street will take it, so if you miss out, it's your own damned fault. And, "oh yes", they say, "we never told you to build so many screens" while in the same breath they beg you to take multiple prints of their front-end loaded, open wide realeases.

I had best stop, lest I awaken with a horse's head next to me in my bed.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 05-14-2005, 03:42 AM:
 
On the customers' side, prices are just going to have to go down, or else quality has got to go WAY up (no small screens/auditoriums, no idiot booth operators and no advertising). On the theaters' side, they should get to keep more of the ticket revenue than they are currently. And no, I don't have an easy answer how to do that.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 05-16-2005, 10:52 AM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Why is it that movie theatres get the bad rap all the time for concession prices? Nice restaurants get just as much markup on a "fancy dinner" -- even though their building, equipment, etc. cost is FAR less than a movie theatre. I have seen no griping about the ridiculous cost of snacks in hotel rooms...way more expensive than theatres. Nobody is griping about the cost of beer and hotdogs at ballgames and concerts, even though they are WAY higher than theatres.

---

The problem with your comparison between movie theaters and restaurants has to do with the level of service provided. In a restaurant, you get to sit down, and a waitress serves you your drinks and your meal, and comes back to make sure that you're happy with your purchase.

Even in fast food joints, lines don't get very long, and the price for a 12oz soda at McDonalds isn't anywhere near the price of the same 12oz soda at the multiplex (yet it comes in the same paper cup and straw). Some theaters are now making you pour your own soda, so there's even less service than before. Why not just install a vending machine, sheesh!

Anyone who takes the snacks out of the mini-bar at a hotel is just nuts, or on the company expense account! A family going to the hotel can bring in their own snacks. Last I checked, most theaters would frown on me bringing in a bag of snacks and cooler of drinks.

It's logical that if the prices are going to be high, then the service needs to make the price worth it. How many theaters are focused on delivering the best experience possible? If the experience at the movie theater is top-notch, I think you will find people are less concerned about doing a price comparison.

Get them to stop thinking about price by making it a value proposition instead. If theaters stop treating people like cattle and more like customers, and my optimistic side says that concerns about the price will go way down.

If service goes down at a restaurant, people stop coming. Is the corollary to a movie theater that big of a stretch?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-16-2005, 12:25 PM:
 
If you'll look at my quote, I was talking about FANCY restaurants which will take that 12 ounces of Coke, put it in a 'glass' and charge you $4.00 for it. And, I was noting that a well-equipped movie theatre, even a "plain" one, will cost far more to equip than even one of the nicest restaurants will. But nobody seems to carp about high restaurant prices and the restaurants are always packed.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-16-2005, 12:56 PM:
 
From Sunday's Los Angeles Times Calendar section:

quote:

---

Hollywood Diary
The Big Sleep that Awaits the Big Screen
By David Freeman, Special to The Times

THE only thing about Hollywood that is an ironclad certainty is that it will change. That's its nature. Predicting just what will happen next, however, is any fool's guess. With that caveat, I'll put on my fool's cap long enough to predict the end of movie theaters. I'm not the first to say this and I don't think theaters as we know them will disappear all at once, but it will happen. When technology and money conspire all you can do is try to get out of the line of fire.

DVDs, the silver discs that are keeping Hollywood afloat, are not only cheaper to make (by far) than theatrical prints, but they require relatively simple technology to use. The ever-narrowing gap between the date of a theatrical release of a film and the subsequent release of that same picture on DVD is the key. Soon enough, the releases will be simultaneous — in theaters and in what's now called home video, either on a disc or in some form of pay TV — all over the world or at least in whatever countries can be signed up. The one-day gross will be gigantic. Piracy will be defanged (though we won't entirely be rid of it.)

The studios don't own theaters and haven't since the 1940s, when the Supreme Court told them they had to sell them all — the so-called consent decrees. As it stands, the studios have to make deals with the exhibitors. The studios drive hard bargains, but their power is nothing like it will be when they not only make the film but also manufacture the device you need to watch it.

Theater chains are still profitable. There's at least one company (Entertainment Properties of Kansas City, Mo.) that continues to build multiplexes. Wall Street likes the stock, so in the short run we'll continue to see theater construction. Eventually many of those buildings will be converted to churches or perhaps branches of Costco. Home screens will get better and the digital quality of the discs will become richer and finally indistinguishable from 35-millimeter film stock. Some theaters will remain, but projected cinema will eventually become something that's done at museums.

For an international company that makes movies and the various home electronic contraptions that can show them, this will be irresistible. The situation that will result will be eerily similar to the days before owning theaters and producing the movies to show in them — vertical integration, in business-speak — was outlawed.

Theater chains will have to figure a way to get in on it, or go out of business. And future generations will not have the communal experience of sitting in a high-ceiling, church-like room with a few hundred strangers, watching giant gods and goddesses cavort. Also, no matter how improved those home screens become, they will never be on the heroic scale of the ArcLight or the Chinese in present-day Hollywood. That means that the studios will stop making movies on the scale of "The Aviator" in favor of pictures with the visual flair of a sitcom.

There's yet another wrinkle in the piracy war. The president recently signed a bill that makes it a felony to use a camcorder in a movie theater. The laws of aesthetics should have outlawed this barbaric practice long ago. Some idiot sits in a theater and makes an illicit copy of what's on the screen and sells the result, which is blurry and sometimes has people walking in front of the camera. The price of getting this law passed is that businesses are now permitted to sell special "cleaned-up" tapes and DVDs of commercial movies.

If you'd like to have a copy of, say, "Charlie's Angels" but you don't want to see the ladies jumping around semiclad (for myself, I can't think of any other reason to watch that thing), you'll be able to buy a censored version you can show to the kids. The companies that do this point out that the uncensored version is still available and that they are only offering an additional choice. The studios accepted this deal to get the first part of the law passed.

The directors screamed. My first response to their anger was to agree — this is a ludicrous turn of events. But on reflection, I thought about all the censorship of that sort the studios have embraced. Special edited versions of their movies for airplanes. Years of film butchery for TV showing. The horrors of "colorizing." The directors lived with all that without much more than a whimper. Cable TV changed expectations. People are used to seeing movies as they were released. The writers haven't been up in arms over this one. I guess screenwriters have grown used to their work being mauled by philistines and presented in their name.

---

 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-16-2005, 02:37 PM:
 
Big deal. Everytime the newspapers or magazines need to fill space (and everytime the Boxoffice gross doesn't go up in a particular quarter) they say the theater business is dying. This has been going on since the dawn of time. Lather, rinse, repeat.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-19-2005, 04:02 PM:
 
Published in today's Oregon Daily Emerald (student newspaper of the University of Oregon in Eugene)

The end of the American movie theater era is near
Ryan Nyburg
Pulse Editor
May 19, 2005

Why do people still go to movie theaters? They are noisy, expensive, inconvenient and increasingly a breeding ground for intrusive advertising. The worst thing about going to the average American movie theater, of course, is having to spend an hour and a half with other average Americans. We must admit that we are not the most pleasant group of people to be around and most of us don't like each other, so why bother at all?
More and more, I find myself at home watching DVDs instead of shelling out the cash for a ticket at the local multiplex or art house. Does this make me a bad person? Does the fact that I'm beginning to have trouble with the community experience of viewing films in a theater make me some kind of bizarre, postmodern, fragmented individual completely disconnected from his fellow human beings?

Bullshit. Watching a movie in a theater is a community experience like staring at a car wreck from a moving vehicle is a community experience. I get no sense of interaction from this. A hundred people sitting in the dark watching flashing lights and hearing loud noises is more akin to a psychological experiment than it is to human togetherness. At least at a concert you can talk, move around and be vomited on, activities that connect to the rest of humanity better than sitting around like a pack of hypnotized herd animals does.

So let me make a radical suggestion: Let's burn down the multiplexes. Hell with them. They rarely show independent works; studios only use them as launching pads for films, and even that practice is proving less profitable. Studios make all of their money from other media, i.e. television broadcast rights and video sales. Theaters are hardly worth the trouble anymore. They exist to give a false sense of legitimacy to a film, make it seem like more than a direct to video fare. But production values are all that distinguish high-class Hollywood films from the non-theater-screened drivel. Why not just cut out the middleman?

I'll make an exception for certain cases: revival houses, some art theaters. These serve a purpose for the community, giving a mode of expression for upcoming filmmakers. And I actually like seeing old movies with an audience of respectful film snobs. It carries that community experience the big theaters lack. Also, there are some things that just need to be seen on the big screen.

So maybe we can reach a compromise between what we have now and arson. First, eliminate the ads before movies. I have never heard a positive response to these, though I know advertisers are banking on the fact that the next generation will just accept them because they won't remember a time without them. For now, I actively do not buy products I see advertised before a movie (as for ones that are advertised in the movie itself, keeping track of those is a little more difficult).

Second, theaters should start offering movie passes. For, say, $20 people could see as many movies as they want. This would get people in the theaters more often, which means more concession sales, which is where theaters make real profit. But studios might not like the idea because it would cut into their slice of the pie (though that slice getting progressively slimmer anyway).

I'm not going to make a grand prediction about the decline of theaters over the next few years or for direct-to-video/on-demand rental being the wave of the future for movies. I make no claims to clairvoyance. But if you want a definite trend toward home viewership rather than theater going, look at the horror film genre. A good chunk of the most interesting horror films are released direct to video or with such a limited theater run they might as well have been. "Dagon," "May," "Ginger Snaps," "Bruiser," "King of the Ants," "Dog Soldiers" etc. Each one better than the last Wes Craven film and each one more intelligent than the remake of "The Amityville Horror."

How's that for a wave of the future?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-19-2005, 04:18 PM:
 
Well that guy is clearly either an idiot, a totally self-absorbed geek, a complete nerd, or a disgruntled indie film-maker, or some combination of the above. When (or if) he ever gets a girlfriend who wants to be taken out for a date, his view will change.

There's a point in that article that always bugs me -- he complains about other moviegoers being noisy. That is true and I don't know what to do about it, but to all the people who want a more "quality experience," I say: AVOID THE OPENING WEEKEND, YOU DOLTS! A good share of the first-weekend crowd could give less than a shit about the movie...they're there to see their friends and share an "event." You could have a nearly-perfect evening with a few other like-minded moviegoers at a late show on Tuesday and still see the same movie and probably enjoy it 10X as much. (That's assuming the theatre hasn't wrecked the print by that time, of course.)
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 05-24-2005, 01:15 PM:
 
Great article. I love it!!
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-25-2005, 05:08 PM:
 
I can dig it.

I think too many of us are overly sensitive and defensive of our industry. I try not to be. In this case, I agree: I think we are in trouble.

The combination of bad movies and quick-to-DVD release scheduling has had an appreciable negative impact on theatre attendance. The relatively recent trend toward the super-wide release pattern (one movie on five screens in every major multiplex) has also affected how much money a theatre can earn from the box office revenue it generates. This explains why a lot of theatre operators place a greater emphasis on concession and advertising revenue and, in their defense, they are somewhat justified in that this is an area that is totally within their control and, from their vantage point, the concession stand keeps the theatre open and makes it possible to keep the movies on-screen. There is some truth to this but the trouble is that, in practice, the budget is too far off-balance and the feature presentation is reduced to the status of "necessary evil" and this is why mediocrity rules when it comes to showmanship.

Part of me can empathise with the straightforward "it's a business" viewpoint but, let's face it, there's an element of greed involved. A bottle of water does not need to cost $3.50! It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense (to me) to admit, on the one hand, that the movie is the "attraction" and then allow it to be anything less than it ought to be.

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

The problem with our industry is, we are marketing the MOVIES and not the EXPERIENCE.

---

It has been my observation that WE aren't marketing anything! Instead, we're allowing the DISTRIBUTORS to take care of the marketing. So it should come as no surprise that the marketing is all about the movies.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-25-2005, 09:11 PM:
 
I remember some years back NATO was going to produce a marketing program the focused on the 'movie experience" but I don't think it ever happened. Might be worth a note to Fithian.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-26-2005, 12:12 AM:
 
But...

How would NATO determine which theatres can be part of such a program, or would it be a free-for-all? On the one hand, NATO might not want to risk offending some member theatres but, on the other hand, it will become empty rhetoric if bad theatres are being promoted alongside good ones.

...and...

Is there REALLY a marketable "experience" of any consistency at the national level?

I wonder if ADAM MARTIN (!!!) would care to comment on that last note. He's visited a whole bunch of theatres from all over the place...
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-26-2005, 12:31 AM:
 
Maybe those questions are the reason it never happened. (yet, anyway)
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 05-26-2005, 11:27 AM:
 
A well run and caring theatre chain, could do it at a national level, but the problem is that none exist.

Many independent local cinemas (at least here in Oakland) do promote themselves and promote *their* cinema experience. Renaissance Rialto Theaters, a chain of three theatres actually, promote themselves as "Dedicated to the preservation of the historic movie going experience." And they do a GREAT job of it! And the Parkway Theatre is a funky cool place selling beer, pizza, and a full menu, with couches and lounge chairs and tables, instead of regular movie seats. Although they show second run movies, they're always packed.

It is inventive and creative ideas like this that is what movie theatres will need to do in the future to remain open and survive. Sorry, the shoebox just doesn't cut it anymore.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-26-2005, 01:53 PM:
 
Two words: Northern California.

Seriously, though...If I wanted to lounge around on a sofa and eat pizza and drink beer while watching a sub-run movie...Why would I bother leaving the house?

I'd be interested in knowing more about this theatre...screen size...max occupancy...sound formats, etc...
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-26-2005, 04:04 PM:
 
i'm not such a fan of the parkway. too much ambient light, bad sightlines. i'm told they project through a periscope at least on the upstairs screen. they show some rep stuff, but don't have lenses beyond 1.85 and scope. i tried their pizza once and it was awful. i had a great sandwich there, though.

but then, it's not like there are many great presentations around anyways. i have on occasion made a point of seeing films on the #1 screen at the grand lake, but now i'm a little wary since they wrapped their midnight of swep3.

carl
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-26-2005, 07:14 PM:
 
That doesn't sound very marketable at all...
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-27-2005, 06:24 PM:
 
News update: Apparently someone at CBS News reads Entertainment Weekly, because they are going to do a report on this subject next week on the Monday news. I guess it's a slow time for news, let's beat up on the movie theatres again.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-27-2005, 06:34 PM:
 
Don't underestimate the media's ability to sway public perception and opinion. The more they beat the "movie theaters are in trouble" drum, the more likely it is for people to believe it and perhaps stop going to movies, or at least go less often, thus exacerbating the problem. Which by the way, there IS a problem.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-27-2005, 11:55 PM:
 
Lest we forget the Canola oil incident...
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-28-2005, 06:32 PM:
 
Here's a blurb from the CBS News website:

And here's an early look at what we're working on for Monday’s broadcast:

The bust at the box office. Forget the lines for Star Wars, other than that hit, fewer of us are headed to the theatres. Is it the movies or the options? The story on Monday's CBS Evening News.

Well at least they spelled "theatres" correctly. You can tell by that text that their report is NOT going to focus on the real problem (early DVD releases, crappy movies). I guess the main consolation is that CBS is the lowest rated of the evening network newscasts, and most of the people who watch it don't go to movies anyway (old people).
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-28-2005, 07:27 PM:
 
I don't know about CBS evening news, but their network is clearly #1 for most prime time programing (CSI, Survivor etc), so goes to show it's not just a geezer network. I'd wait and see the actual report before critizing as their blurb "is it the movies or the options" can be taken many different ways, including the ones you said they probably wouldn't cover.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 05-29-2005, 12:45 AM:
 
the real problem (early DVD releases, crappy movies)

quote: Mike Heenan was the last to post

---

---

AND overall lack of concern for presentation quality at many theatres- does it mention THAT?
I had a quick look at that Entertainment Weekly magazine, it mentioned someone from AMC saying something (in defense of high ticket prices vs. cheap DVDs) like it costs more to go out to a good restaurant than it does to stay at home and cook. What I would've liked to have said to him is that while theatres may be charging the "good restaurant" prices, the people they have in charge are of lower calibur than that of the average McDonald's worker! Would anyone go to expensive restaurants if they kept burning the food or making other mistakes to ruin it?? I would suspect that chefs at these restaurants are better paid than most booth people as well...
DVD ain't perfect, but video done right still beats film done WRONG!
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 05-31-2005, 07:26 PM:
 
Looks like more piling on. The Today Show on NBC did a segment this morning. DVD's and video games were reported to be competing for the public's dollars.

You have to hope that all the hype doesn't turn into a self-fulfilling prophesy.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-31-2005, 09:20 PM:
 
The CBS News thing was not "too" bad, although they really made one really dopey observation.

"Last year, 'The Passion of the Christ' took in $370 million dollars. This year, the highly hyped 'Kingdom of Heaven' was a bomb. Is it because of DVDs etc etc?"

No, CBS --Listen carefully: "Kingdom of Heaven" WAS A MOVIE NOBODY WANTED TO SEE, while "The Passion" WAS A MOVIE PEOPLE WANTED TO SEE. Get it? Huh?

I'll bet none of the news services did a report on this past weekend, when EPIII did over $70 million in weekend #2, and Madagascar and Longest Yard each did over $60 mil -- the first time in history there have been 3 movies over $60 mil in one weekend.

Seriously, sometimes I feel like there are only a handful of people on the planet who have a clue. Thankfully, most of us are members of Film-Tech.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 06-08-2005, 02:51 PM:
 
Entertainment Weekly printed a few letters in response to the article, one of them said in respose to the AMC guy's comment that they are charging "nice restaurant" prices, but giving a McDonald's atmosphere! And THAT, my friends, is why business is down.
I've had far more movies ruined at theaters than ruined burgers at Mcdonald's too, though I'm not as picky about that stuff.
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 06-09-2005, 01:42 AM:
 
The 6/6/2005 issue of Time magazine in their 'Verbatim' column (a collection of short, topical quotes) had this one:

quote:

---

"I want to do things that confrom to my time frame, not someone else's."
-- Matthew Khalil, senior at UCLA, who says he goes to the movies about once a month, but, like many other Americans, prefers to watch DVD's at home

---

quote:

---

It´s time to bring back the splendour of 70mm prints !!!!!!

---

"Preaching to the choir":

Splendor of 70mm Part 1

Splendor of 70mm Part 2

Although, since you can count the recent IMAX "DMR" releases as 70mm, things are really looking better:

http://www.bigmoviezone.com/articles/?uniq=208

quote:

---

NEW YORK, Dec. 13 -- THE POLAR EXPRESS: AN IMAX 3D EXPERIENCE, from Warner Bros. Pictures and Castle Rock Entertainment, continues to break box office records this holiday season, and in just five weeks, has become the highest grossing IMAX DMR® (Digital Re-mastering) release ever, IMAX Corporation (NASDAQ: IMAX; TSX: IMX) announced today. Playing on 77 screens around the world, the film grossed an estimated $2.53 million over the three-day period from Friday, December 10 through Sunday, December 12, with the North American gross essentially unchanged compared to the previous weekend. The 15 international screens playing the movie contributed approximately $500,000 of the total gross. The picture has now grossed an estimated total of $18 million in five weeks in IMAX® theatres, considerably surpassing the IMAX DMR box office record set by THE MATRIX RELOADED: THE IMAX EXPERIENCE, which grossed just over $14 million in twenty- two weeks.

---

quote:

---

LOS ANGELES, June 6 /PRNewswire/ -- Warner Bros. Pictures will release Batman Begins: The IMAX Experience in select IMAX theatres beginning Wednesday, June 15th, concurrent with the 35mm release. Batman Begins, which explores the origins of the Batman legend, has been digitally re-mastered into the unparalleled image and sound quality of The IMAX Experience® with proprietary IMAX DMR® (digital re-mastering) technology.

---

quote:

---

IMAX Corporation and Warner Bros. Pictures today announced that "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," the highly anticipated film reuniting Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, and produced by Brad Grey and Richard D. Zanuck, will be simultaneously released to IMAX(R) and conventional 35mm theatres on July 15th, 2005. The announcement follows on the heels of previous successful Warner Bros. Pictures' IMAX DMR(R) releases, including the record-setting holiday hit "The Polar Express: An IMAX 3D Experience."

---

quote:

---

ROBOTS, an animated feature from the creators of the 2002 hit ICE AGE, will be simultaneously released to both IMAX® and conventional theatres on March 11, 2005. The film will be digitally re-mastered into the unparalleled image and sound quality of The IMAX Experience® with proprietary IMAX DMR® (Digital Re-mastering) technology. ROBOTS marks the first day-and-date IMAX DMR release to open during the spring film season and serves to build IMAX's commercial film slate for 2005.

---

• War of the Worlds
• Willy Wonka
• Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
• The Bad News Bears